get_agents_by_owner

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The annotations already disclose read-only, idempotent, and open-world behavior, so the description does not need to restate those. It adds scoping detail for owner_identifier, but does not describe pagination, matching behavior, or response contents; there is no contradiction with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The entire definition is one front-loaded sentence: the verb and resource appear immediately, and the following clause adds the key scoping detail. No filler or repeated schema information is present.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a read-only, two-parameter listing tool the definition is close to adequate, but it leaves small gaps: the behavior of limit, the matching semantics of owner_identifier, and what fields are returned are not explained. The low complexity and annotations keep this from being worse.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter semantics. It does clarify that owner_identifier may be a UPN, name, or objectId, but it gives no meaning for the optional limit parameter. Compensation is only partial.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('Lista') and names the target resource ('Agents') while narrowing scope to an owner and listing accepted identifier formats. It is clear, though it does not explicitly position itself against sibling tools such as get_owned_objects or list_objects_without_owner.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is given for when to choose this tool over alternatives, when not to use it, or what prerequisites apply. An agent can only infer from the tool name and one-line purpose, so this dimension is under-specified.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.